Debunking Forester
02-22-07 | 08:22 PM
#151
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
What's your big deal about the debunking of Forester? Is the goring of your Sacred Cow too personal?
Again, critical analysis of what Forester actually said and meant, that's fine. I encourage that. But the semantic nitpicking used to attempt to vilify him and debunk his whole body of work, that's just not fair.
02-22-07 | 08:25 PM
#152
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by SingingSabre
If it only exists in a very limited number of people, why do you even bring it up?
I didn't say nor imply that it only exists in a very limited number of people.
Forester's claim in the paper that Diane says she debunked in the OP is that it exists, period. Therefore if it exists, even only in a very limited number of people, Forester's claim is not debunked.
02-22-07 | 08:32 PM
#153
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 1
From: Beaverton, Oregon
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
You guys are taking "enemies" out of context (making this yet another much ado about nothing semantic criticism of Forester, at most, not a debunking).
At the start of the piece in question, which ILTB has provided here, Forester makes clear that he is refering to "VC enemies". Obviously, he is using the term to refer to groups of people who favor things which are contrary to the interests of furthering vehicular cycling -- cyclists acting in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road when traveling on roads -- in our culture.
You can argue about whether "enemies" is an appropriate term to use to refer to such people, and you can make fun of it, but that hardly debunks what he has to say about it. The groups of people he refers to as "enemies" are simply those he considers to be opposed to the interests of furthering VC. What's the big deal?
At the start of the piece in question, which ILTB has provided here, Forester makes clear that he is refering to "VC enemies". Obviously, he is using the term to refer to groups of people who favor things which are contrary to the interests of furthering vehicular cycling -- cyclists acting in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road when traveling on roads -- in our culture.
You can argue about whether "enemies" is an appropriate term to use to refer to such people, and you can make fun of it, but that hardly debunks what he has to say about it. The groups of people he refers to as "enemies" are simply those he considers to be opposed to the interests of furthering VC. What's the big deal?
John
02-22-07 | 09:05 PM
#154
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 1
From: Beaverton, Oregon
Bikes: Rans Stratus, Trek 1420, Rivendell Rambouillet
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
I didn't bring it up (Diane did).
I didn't say nor imply that it only exists in a very limited number of people.
Forester's claim in the paper that Diane says she debunked in the OP is that it exists, period. Therefore if it exists, even only in a very limited number of people, Forester's claim is not debunked.
I didn't say nor imply that it only exists in a very limited number of people.
Forester's claim in the paper that Diane says she debunked in the OP is that it exists, period. Therefore if it exists, even only in a very limited number of people, Forester's claim is not debunked.
Here is what Forester said:
The description of the facts fits the diagnostic criteria in all ways but one. That one is the prevalence of the disorder. The APA considers that phobias must be rare, affecting only a small proportion of the population, so that the victim recognizes that his or her fear is unusual. This criterion serves to distinguish simple phobias from other disorders in which the victim believes that his or her condition is the universal state of mankind. A victim of paranoia may believe that he or she is the only person targeted by a particular evil entity (or believe that all persons of some class are so targeted), but he or she believes completely in the existence and danger of that evil entity. On the contrary, the person with the typical simple phobia, say of air travel, as in one of the examples given, has to recognize that most people do not fear air travel because air travel is the most frequently used form of long-distance travel, in which typical people complain of missed connections, lost baggage, and inconvenient travelling hours, but do not complain of being afraid. The distinction between a condition in which the victim recognizes the atypical nature of his or her fear and one in which the victim believes absolutely in the danger of the object feared is vital to making a correct diagnosis and undertaking the proper treatment.
However, the APA probably has never had to consider that a particular phobia is held by the great majority of the population. There is no theoretical reason why a condition that fits all the other diagnostic criteria for a phobia should not affect the majority of the population. However, if the great majority of the population suffer from a particular phobia, there is no means by which any victim can conclude that their fear is atypical. Under this condition, it is in fact typical. The only means by which a person who suffers from this condition can determine whether it is a phobia is by knowing whether or not the facts agree with reality, and it is recognized that knowing the facts does not cure phobias. That is, the fact that the person who fears air travel recognizes that air travel is not very dangerous (Diagnostic Criterion F), because most people do not fear air travel, does not cure the fear. The persistence despite accurate knowledge is what makes it a phobia. Only successful experience of the conditions of air travel (starting by visiting planes that will not take off) has been found to cure the disorder.
However, the APA probably has never had to consider that a particular phobia is held by the great majority of the population. There is no theoretical reason why a condition that fits all the other diagnostic criteria for a phobia should not affect the majority of the population. However, if the great majority of the population suffer from a particular phobia, there is no means by which any victim can conclude that their fear is atypical. Under this condition, it is in fact typical. The only means by which a person who suffers from this condition can determine whether it is a phobia is by knowing whether or not the facts agree with reality, and it is recognized that knowing the facts does not cure phobias. That is, the fact that the person who fears air travel recognizes that air travel is not very dangerous (Diagnostic Criterion F), because most people do not fear air travel, does not cure the fear. The persistence despite accurate knowledge is what makes it a phobia. Only successful experience of the conditions of air travel (starting by visiting planes that will not take off) has been found to cure the disorder.
John
02-22-07 | 09:29 PM
#155
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
I know, John. Sorry about the confusion. In retrospect, I can see how you might think that with the statement I made, "Forester's claim in the paper that Diane says she debunked in the OP is that it exists, period.", I was contending that Forester did not claim that the prevalence of the phobia within our society was widespread. Yes, Forester believes not only that the phobia exists, but that the prevalence is widespread. However, the paper, at least initially, seems to be geared primarily towards addressing the issue of whether the phobia exists at all, and whether or not it is even a phobia. Acknowledging that it did exist even in just a small portion of the population, would "undebunk" these main points. That's what I meant (in answer to SS's question, "If it only exists in a very limited number of people, why do you even bring it up?").
02-22-07 | 10:52 PM
#156
Thread Starter
Dominatrikes
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 0
From: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
The majority of people are disgusted by the thought of eating other people. Does this mean that there's widespread phobia of human meat?
Helmet Head, we are still waiting for some concrete evidence of your position that we're being unfair to JF's words. Or are you JF himself and simply cannot do so?
Helmet Head, we are still waiting for some concrete evidence of your position that we're being unfair to JF's words. Or are you JF himself and simply cannot do so?
02-22-07 | 11:07 PM
#157
bragi
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,911
Likes: 3
From: seattle, WA
Bikes: LHT
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
But "seems to be stretching it" is hardly debunking. Nor does it justify, "How anyone can even take him seriously at all is beyond me.".
I take my 7 year old daughter seriously, as I did when she was 3. I take everyone seriously (including Bek, ILTB and Diane) because everyone deserves to be taken seriously, and their words should always be evaluated as objectively as possible, interpreted in the context in which they were written or said. It doesn't matter who says them. I'm sure Albert Einstein uttered complete nonsense from time to time, and the unabomber actually made some sense here and there.
Words should be evaluated, credited or debunked, not people.
02-22-07 | 11:15 PM
#158
totally louche
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 18,023
Likes: 12
From: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Bosh! John forester is nuttier than a christmas fruitcake!
look at his drivel masquerading as 'data'. Guy's a pontificating blowhard.
I bet he scowls as he drives by true transportational bicyclists, the disenfranchised utility riders.
john forester is the anti-cyclist, as far as i'm concerned. And I've read a LOT of his pedantic drivel.
look at his drivel masquerading as 'data'. Guy's a pontificating blowhard.
I bet he scowls as he drives by true transportational bicyclists, the disenfranchised utility riders.
john forester is the anti-cyclist, as far as i'm concerned. And I've read a LOT of his pedantic drivel.
02-22-07 | 11:20 PM
#159
Thread Starter
Dominatrikes
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 0
From: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
JF's web site does bear a lot of the hallmarks of classic crackpotism. Even the style (or lack thereof) is an indicator. I think he read that Internet article published in 1997 that said that most people consider black text on white backgrounds to be more professional and he'll be damned if he strays one bit from that bit of advice.
But the true sign is the long list of letters after his name name along with the talk about how unscientific everybody else in the world is together with the use of all the classic unscientific, emotional tactics he criticises others of doing to make his own arguments. THAT is classic crackpotism.
But the true sign is the long list of letters after his name name along with the talk about how unscientific everybody else in the world is together with the use of all the classic unscientific, emotional tactics he criticises others of doing to make his own arguments. THAT is classic crackpotism.
02-23-07 | 01:33 AM
#160
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by bragi
Now you're playing with semantics. When I mentioned that I was surprised that anyone could take Forester seriously, I obviously meant his ideas, not Forester the man. I don't know the man, and I bear him no ill will; I just think his site, which is the only exposure I've had to him, is simply laughable, that's all.
Here's the thing, in order to understand his ideas, you have to take those ideas seriously in the first place. If you don't do that, then you will not understand what the idea is. If you don't understand his ideas, then it's easy to say you can't believe anyone would take them seriously, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Don't agree? It should be easy to prove me wrong, by answering these two questions:
- What is one of Forester's ideas - going by what he actually said, and making a genuine effort to understand what he meant - that you cannot take seriously?
- Why are you unable to take this idea seriously?
02-23-07 | 01:36 AM
#161
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by Bekologist
Bosh! John forester is nuttier than a christmas fruitcake!
look at his drivel masquerading as 'data'. Guy's a pontificating blowhard.
I bet he scowls as he drives by true transportational bicyclists, the disenfranchised utility riders.
john forester is the anti-cyclist, as far as i'm concerned. And I've read a LOT of his pedantic drivel.
look at his drivel masquerading as 'data'. Guy's a pontificating blowhard.
I bet he scowls as he drives by true transportational bicyclists, the disenfranchised utility riders.
john forester is the anti-cyclist, as far as i'm concerned. And I've read a LOT of his pedantic drivel.
Originally Posted by sbhikes
JF's web site does bear a lot of the hallmarks of classic crackpotism. Even the style (or lack thereof) is an indicator. I think he read that Internet article published in 1997 that said that most people consider black text on white backgrounds to be more professional and he'll be damned if he strays one bit from that bit of advice.
But the true sign is the long list of letters after his name name along with the talk about how unscientific everybody else in the world is together with the use of all the classic unscientific, emotional tactics he criticises others of doing to make his own arguments. THAT is classic crackpotism.
But the true sign is the long list of letters after his name name along with the talk about how unscientific everybody else in the world is together with the use of all the classic unscientific, emotional tactics he criticises others of doing to make his own arguments. THAT is classic crackpotism.
02-23-07 | 02:24 AM
#162
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Here are some examples of cyclist inferiority phobia (or complex, or taboo or whatever you want to call it) as relayed by various BF members in recent posts to this forum:
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...6&postcount=23
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...2&postcount=14
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...6&postcount=18
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...2&postcount=20
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...85&postcount=7
https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...3&postcount=89
So much for the debunking. RIP.
Originally Posted by sggoodri
...yelled to his friend: "You'd better not ride in the road, or you're going to get hit by a car!" His friend responded by steering off the roadway onto the soft shoulder, where he then lost control and ended up falling in the drainage swale.
There were no cars in sight.
There were no cars in sight.
Originally Posted by bmclaughlin807
I know lots of people with excessive fears of being struck from behind on a bicycle. Not one of them has ridden a bicycle since they were about 10. They're the same ones that think I'm crazy for riding my bike to work everyday, but ... here I am.
Originally Posted by donnamb
My stepdad fears riding on the correct side of the road because he thinks he'll get hit from behind. He's a stubborn guy, nothing will convince him. Doesn't stop him from riding on the road, though, he just rides on the wrong side.
Originally Posted by sbhikes
I know people who have an excessive fear of traffic, but they still do ride in the roads. But they hop on the sidewalk as soon as they get the chance and are very vocal in their fear while riding in the street. They just can't wait to get away from the roads they fear.
Originally Posted by genec
The reason for the whole phobia is due to our under training as youth. As we first encounter the bicycle as young children, we have poor motor skills and poor balance... our instructors (parents) see this and suggest that we should ride on sidewalks and "watch out for cars." This instills in us a sense that we should be paranoid of cars when we are out playing with our "toys."
Originally Posted by sbhikes
probably it is true for a lot of people.
So much for the debunking. RIP.
02-23-07 | 04:49 AM
#163
Been Around Awhile
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 30,680
Likes: 1,993
From: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Here are some examples of cyclist inferiority phobia (or complex, or taboo or whatever you want to call it) as relayed by various BF members in recent posts to this forum:
So much for the debunking. RIP.
So much for the debunking. RIP.
So much for the gullibility of those naive enough to post a response to an HH poll and not expect to see it twisted to fit into his agenda.
02-23-07 | 07:52 AM
#164
Part-time epistemologist
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 3
From: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer
Originally Posted by joejack951
Forester took issue with the blanket statement that sidepaths are safer for cyclists because they seperate bicycle traffic from motor traffic. A blanket statement like that implies that under any conditions, the sidepath is safer. He set out, albeit possibly not in the best manner, to prove that blanket statement false. You freely admit yourself that sidepaths are not safe above certain speeds, speed that many cyclists meet or exceed safely on the street.
Anecdotally thinking about the DC paths, I think that there are clearly some sections that are more dangerous than nearby roads and vice versa. This is assuming that I am traveling at my comfortable "lazy" speed of 13-17 mph. In reference to an earlier post, this is dependent on traffic.
02-23-07 | 08:00 AM
#165
Part-time epistemologist
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 3
From: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
But he is still making the implicit assumption that roadway procedures represent the safest way to operate a bicycle in any environment to make the link between his analysis of relative safety with his actual test procedure and results.
02-23-07 | 08:30 AM
#166
Part-time epistemologist
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 3
From: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer
Originally Posted by sggoodri
Forester points out that the danger of designing the bicycle transportation system for novice cyclists is that it may degrade its performance for the types of skilled cyclists who typically belong to bicyclist organications. An example of such degradation is that a sidepath cannot be used at the same speed as a roadway with the same level of safety.
...
I agree with him there, first for the practical reason because the core membership of the bicyclist organization must be served if the organization is to survive as a bicyclist organization. But secondly, I believe that it is possible to provide a well-engineered vehicular cycling transportation system that performs very well for both skilled and beginner cyclists, and that educating novices to use such a well-engineered system is more appropriate and cost-effective than letting novices dictate the design of the system. And as Forester (who has dedicated much of his life to traffic cycling education) has pointed out, if novices really take up cycling, they won't stay novices for long.
...
I agree with him there, first for the practical reason because the core membership of the bicyclist organization must be served if the organization is to survive as a bicyclist organization. But secondly, I believe that it is possible to provide a well-engineered vehicular cycling transportation system that performs very well for both skilled and beginner cyclists, and that educating novices to use such a well-engineered system is more appropriate and cost-effective than letting novices dictate the design of the system. And as Forester (who has dedicated much of his life to traffic cycling education) has pointed out, if novices really take up cycling, they won't stay novices for long.
I understand the arguments. I fail to see how advanced cyclists' skills will be degraded as long as there is an alternative to the bikepath/MUP. As long as the experienced cyclists still ride the roads on a regular basis, those skills are receiving practice and should remain effective. If those same experienced cyclists choose to ride the bikepath/MUP, then they must perceive it as safer or at least prefer it in someway such that they are better off than before.
Of course, if cyclists are forced off the roads, then the story changes. I think advocacy groups would be better off increasing cyclists since it would help preserve the aforementioned rights and best serve the experience members.
I agree with the second point that in many cases, a vehicular cycling approach would be both more cost and safety effective. But that should be demonstratable for either side according to the application.
I also disagree with the last point. That is, I think that there are a lot of riders who never become advanced cyclists but always remain novices from a skills perspective. I don't have any good statistics on this. I am just thinking about some buds and family members that whip out the clunker (from my arrogant perspective!
) once a month during good weather.Anyway, I think the global statements about Forester's ideas are just too strong. That is, he has some evidence, he has thought about these issues, and has something to contribute. We might disagree on the value of the evidence and its interpretation. I do think that his approach to interacting with people has blunted his effectiveness in advocacy.
But with regards to this thread, I get the sense that much of the argument here is not really about Forester.
02-23-07 | 08:31 AM
#167
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
From: St. Louis
"Suffice it to write that the vehicular-cycling view has all the scientific and engineering support while the cyclist-inferiority view has only emotional support." -John Forester
If they say the mone is blewe
We must believe that it is true
-16th century pundit
By enemies Forester obviously means enemies of the Gospel of the Great One, not enemies of vehicular cycling (small 'v', small 'c').
The only thing the self-test proved is that Forester's a maniac. Forester's 'proof' of the cyclist inferiority phobia is always a crowd pleaser, too.
I don't know why, but Captain Queeg's monologue in the Caine Mutiny comes to mind.
"Ah, but the strawberries! That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic..."
Is there any group that Forester doesn't not like? Well, I guess the ADC and anybody else who'll kiss his rear end. He says what the ADC wants to hear: Don't worry, bicyclists want to stay out of your way, and you don't even need to build us no stinkin' facilities.
I found this amusing:
"Indeed, the standard advice to lawful, competent cyclists is to ride properly by ignoring the presence of the bicycle-lane stripe. Depending on the jurisdiction, this may involve disobeying the law..." - Forester
The Forester quotes are from his
Article on the Place of Cycling in Modern Societies
https://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf
I hardly think that Forester's life's work can be discredited by a few phobic, low IQ, incompetent cyclists on an internet message board. Your attempts to spin things are entertaining, though. You crack me up as much as he does.
If they say the mone is blewe
We must believe that it is true
-16th century pundit
By enemies Forester obviously means enemies of the Gospel of the Great One, not enemies of vehicular cycling (small 'v', small 'c').
The only thing the self-test proved is that Forester's a maniac. Forester's 'proof' of the cyclist inferiority phobia is always a crowd pleaser, too.
I don't know why, but Captain Queeg's monologue in the Caine Mutiny comes to mind.
"Ah, but the strawberries! That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic..."
Is there any group that Forester doesn't not like? Well, I guess the ADC and anybody else who'll kiss his rear end. He says what the ADC wants to hear: Don't worry, bicyclists want to stay out of your way, and you don't even need to build us no stinkin' facilities.
I found this amusing:
"Indeed, the standard advice to lawful, competent cyclists is to ride properly by ignoring the presence of the bicycle-lane stripe. Depending on the jurisdiction, this may involve disobeying the law..." - Forester
The Forester quotes are from his
Article on the Place of Cycling in Modern Societies
https://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Brian R, are these pathetic attempts to vilify Forester and discredit his life's work examples of what you consider to be "good stuff", and critical analysis?
02-23-07 | 08:36 AM
#168
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,123
Likes: 4
From: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
Hmmmm, I did not originally interpret his article that way. I recall that in the beginning of the exposition, he gives the right caveats and assumptions. But I think that you are right that when he gives his risk ratio (only term that came to my head this early in the morning) he fails to re-emphasize them.
This is not an apples to apples comparison which can arrive at a risk ratio. He simply applied his on-road cycling parameters to the sidepath environment and found that they don't work (which is no real surprise). This is all the test shows. It cannot be extrapolated to form any sort of absolute safety comparison.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
02-23-07 | 08:50 AM
#169
totally louche
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 18,023
Likes: 12
From: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Originally Posted by JRA
Captain Queeg's monologue in the Caine Mutiny comes to mind.
"Ah, but the strawberries! That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic..."
.........
I found this amusing:
"Indeed, the standard advice to lawful, competent cyclists is to ride properly by ignoring the presence of the bicycle-lane stripe. Depending on the jurisdiction, this may involve disobeying the law..." - Forester
"Ah, but the strawberries! That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic..."
.........
I found this amusing:
"Indeed, the standard advice to lawful, competent cyclists is to ride properly by ignoring the presence of the bicycle-lane stripe. Depending on the jurisdiction, this may involve disobeying the law..." - Forester
two quacks in a gaggle. lost in the cacophony of all the rest of the riders out there.
there's a LOT of variety of riding styles; predicating any one style on all is unrealistic quackery and anti- populist bicycling.
john forester is the anticyclist. i bet he scowls at the real utility and transportational bikers he sees out his car window and asks himself "where are all these riders coming from? Barring improving their skills, how can I reduce their numbers?"
"Ah, but the strawberries! That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes, but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic..."
02-23-07 | 09:01 AM
#170
bragi
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,911
Likes: 3
From: seattle, WA
Bikes: LHT
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
So you meant, "surprised that anyone could take any of Forester's ideas seriously"? If so, my point stands. I, for one, do take his ideas seriously.
Here's the thing, in order to understand his ideas, you have to take those ideas seriously in the first place. If you don't do that, then you will not understand what the idea is. If you don't understand his ideas, then it's easy to say you can't believe anyone would take them seriously, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Don't agree? It should be easy to prove me wrong, by answering these two questions:
Here's the thing, in order to understand his ideas, you have to take those ideas seriously in the first place. If you don't do that, then you will not understand what the idea is. If you don't understand his ideas, then it's easy to say you can't believe anyone would take them seriously, because you don't know what you're talking about.
Don't agree? It should be easy to prove me wrong, by answering these two questions:
- What is one of Forester's ideas - going by what he actually said, and making a genuine effort to understand what he meant - that you cannot take seriously?
- Why are you unable to take this idea seriously?
At any rate, here's one idea that I cannot take seriously: That people who advocate for accomodations for bikes in our infrastructure are motivated by a mass clinical phobia about getting hit from behind by a motor vehicle. Their fear of this unlikely event is so deep-seated that they fear for others as well as themselves, and advocate for a complete separation of bikes and cars. He couches this ridiculous idea in academic language, but it's still goofy as all get-out, and that's why I'm laughing at him.
02-23-07 | 09:48 AM
#171
Thread Starter
Dominatrikes
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,920
Likes: 0
From: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Here's one idea I cannot take seriously:
I cannot take seriously that anybody truly believes that organizing a political committee is an "immediate anxiety response".
Here are some definitions of anxiety from the clinical point of view:
Organizing a political committee is not the same thing as heart palpitations, increased heart rate, difficulty breating, hyperactivity or other symptoms that interfere with normal functioning.
Forester's essay confuses on purpose the basic definintion of anxiety -- worry and apprehension -- with the clinical psychological definition of anxiety. And he does this on purpose simply to discredit his "enemies", not because it is scientific. It's a trick, and emotional ploy, a cheap shot.
It makes as much sense as the following statement:
Even contemplating the exposure to cyclists in the street causes anxiety response, as when drivers organize political committees such as the American Dream Coalition or Santa Barbara SAFE Streets to obtain protection from the condition that they fear.
Originally Posted by John Forester
Does exposure to motor traffic from behind, while riding a bicycle, almost invariably provoke an immediate anxiety response. Certainly it does, and even contemplating the exposure of others to the stimulus causes anxiety response, as when people organize political committees to obtain protection from the condition that they fear.
Here are some definitions of anxiety from the clinical point of view:
- When the word anxiety is used to discuss a group of mental illnesses (anxiety disorders), it refers to an unpleasant and overriding inner emotional tension that has not apparent identifiable cause. These disorders are severe enough to interfere with social or occupational functioning.
www.snowdenmentalhealth.com/glossary.mgi - A debilitating condition of fear, which interferes with normal life functions.
www.cheyenneurological.com/A.htm - Nonspecific, unpleasant feeling of apprehension, discomfort, and, in some cases, dread and impending doom that is manifested physically by such symptoms as motortension, autonomic hyperactivity, or hyperattentiveness. Symptoms prompt the person to take some action to seek relief. Anxiety can be communicated interpersonally.
www.dphilpotlaw.com/html/glossary.html - A feeling of uneasiness, apprehension or impending danger - even when no real threat exists. The feeling may be accompanied by physical symptoms such as increased heart rate, palpitations, difficulty breathing, and sweating.
www.mcg.edu/Resources/MH/sourcebk/glossary.htm
Organizing a political committee is not the same thing as heart palpitations, increased heart rate, difficulty breating, hyperactivity or other symptoms that interfere with normal functioning.
Forester's essay confuses on purpose the basic definintion of anxiety -- worry and apprehension -- with the clinical psychological definition of anxiety. And he does this on purpose simply to discredit his "enemies", not because it is scientific. It's a trick, and emotional ploy, a cheap shot.
It makes as much sense as the following statement:
Even contemplating the exposure to cyclists in the street causes anxiety response, as when drivers organize political committees such as the American Dream Coalition or Santa Barbara SAFE Streets to obtain protection from the condition that they fear.
02-23-07 | 10:17 AM
#172
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Congratulations, Diane. After 7 pages and over 170 posts in a thread entitled Debunking Forester, finally good critical analysis that shows in detail how Forester, as invisiblehand put it many pages ago, "might be stretching it a bit".
But, again, all this shows is that the concept to which Forester refers to as a "phobia" might best be called something else, that "phobia" is not a good term for it. Now, I've been saying that this is a "much ado about nothing" semantic argument, but, really, since the whole point of his paper is show that that condition really is a phobia, or a Simple Phobia per the DSM manual, this is a fair criticism.
But for me, what's much more important, is that the condition exists. Goodridge is probably right that the better term is taboo. But there are plenty of examples, as I demonstrated in #162, that the condition exists, and is a significant factor in people deciding not to ride their bikes, or not to ride their bikes as often, as well as influencing many to support separated facilities for bicyclists, regardless of whether it is a "true" phobia or not.
But, again, all this shows is that the concept to which Forester refers to as a "phobia" might best be called something else, that "phobia" is not a good term for it. Now, I've been saying that this is a "much ado about nothing" semantic argument, but, really, since the whole point of his paper is show that that condition really is a phobia, or a Simple Phobia per the DSM manual, this is a fair criticism.
But for me, what's much more important, is that the condition exists. Goodridge is probably right that the better term is taboo. But there are plenty of examples, as I demonstrated in #162, that the condition exists, and is a significant factor in people deciding not to ride their bikes, or not to ride their bikes as often, as well as influencing many to support separated facilities for bicyclists, regardless of whether it is a "true" phobia or not.
02-23-07 | 10:31 AM
#173
totally louche
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 18,023
Likes: 12
From: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
How ARE those strawberries?
02-23-07 | 10:43 AM
#174
Part-time epistemologist
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 5,870
Likes: 3
From: Washington, DC
Bikes: Jamis Nova, Bike Friday triplet, Bike Friday NWT, STRIDA, Austro Daimler Vent Noir, Hollands Tourer
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
I am stretching somewhat, but the only way I could imagine him riding on a sidepath and running into right hooks and chroming out into a headon situation is that he was riding fast (~20mph) and he never yielded at an intersection to cross traffic. He rode in a manner which is commonly used on the street, but is suicidal on a sidepath.
This is not an apples to apples comparison which can arrive at a risk ratio. He simply applied his on-road cycling parameters to the sidepath environment and found that they don't work (which is no real surprise). This is all the test shows. It cannot be extrapolated to form any sort of absolute safety comparison.
This is not an apples to apples comparison which can arrive at a risk ratio. He simply applied his on-road cycling parameters to the sidepath environment and found that they don't work (which is no real surprise). This is all the test shows. It cannot be extrapolated to form any sort of absolute safety comparison.
02-23-07 | 10:52 AM
#175
Banned.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,075
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
This is not an apples to apples comparison which can arrive at a risk ratio. He simply applied his on-road cycling parameters to the sidepath environment and found that they don't work (which is no real surprise). This is all the test shows.
The point is that forcing cyclists to ride on such facilities is unfair, because it requires riding considerably slower than they normally ride on the road. Of course it's no real surprise to the members of this forum, but to the non-cyclist city council members of Palo Alto, for whom the test was conducted (if memory serves), it was something they probably never even considered.